MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1716680343 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1026

The Court's Exercise of Plenary Power: Rewriting the Two-Row Wampum

2002· article· en· W1716680343 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtJurisprudenceLawDoctrinePolitical scienceHigh CourtSovereigntySociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supreme Court Law Review (2002), 16 S.C.L.R. (2d) less be serious and disturbing.If, on the other hand, the Court rejects this approach in favour of adopting what it will undoubtedly trumpet as a "liberal and generous" alternative, it will most certainly fall in line with the disturbing road well-travelled, that road illustrated by what is so wrong with its treatment of Aboriginal rights in Mitchell.This study ends, then, with something of an archaeological investigation, a dig into the ruins of Aboriginal law, to make sense of the doctrine of sovereign incompatibility, to come to some sense of how the field of Aboriginal law has come to trap Aboriginal peoples.The paper closes with suggestions about how this excavation might lead to the resurrection of Aboriginal rights from the ruins of Aboriginal law.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207